Are Hillary Clinton’s Strong Poll Numbers Misleading?

Pundits are afraid that Trump is doing better than the numbers suggest.

August 8, 2016

Want to Fight Back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

Political science tells us Hillary Clinton will win the election—the poll numbers are so clearly in her favor. As of this moment, the authoritative FiveThirtyEight “polls only” forecast says Clinton’s chance of beating Trump is 86.6 percent. But polling is an inexact science, and a lot of pundits are asking: Could the polls be wrong this time?

The first problem they point to is that some Trump voters might be lying to the pollsters. “How Many People Support Trump but Don’t Want to Admit It?” Thomas Edsall asked in a recent op-ed. Some voters don’t want to tell a live interviewer that they back a candidate who has been so offensive and outrageous. The pollsters call this “social desirability bias”—“the desire of respondents to avoid embarrassment” in speaking with interviewers on the phone. But on November 8, in the privacy of the voting booth, they will cast their secret ballot for the Republican.

It’s happened before—in California, where I live, we call it “the Bradley Effect.” Tom Bradley, the first black mayor of LA, ran for governor in 1982, and all the polls said he would win—but on election day he lost. White voters broke with Bradley in far higher numbers than polling predicted, and many at the time wondered if it was because he was black. This year we wonder how many men will refuse to vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. They know they’re not supposed to say it, but that won’t stop them from doing it.

The second problem is that the pollsters’ standard criteria for “likely voters” may not work this year. If you are in the polling business, it’s not hard to call people and ask whom they plan to vote for. The hard part is deciding whether to count them as “likely voters”—because more than 40 percent of Americans eligible to vote have not cast a ballot in the last two presidential elections. So all pollsters rank the people they poll on the likelihood of their voting.

4

5

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight has complained about the traditional “likely voter” methodology. It’s pretty straightforward: They ask if the voter is registered, if he intends to vote, if he knows where his polling place is—and whether he’s voted in the past. The most important criterion for a “likely” voter is whether they voted in the last election. If they didn’t, they are typically judged “not likely” to vote, and they are not counted in the poll results. That’s the science of opinion polling, based on historical experience.

But the scientists are not unanimous about this methodology. “A voter can tell you he’s registered,” Nate Silver wrote in 2008, “tell you that he’s certain to vote, tell you that he’s very engaged by the election, tell you that he knows where his polling place is, etc., and still be excluded” from the results if he didn’t vote in the past. Silver thought that if a voter said he intended to vote, he should be counted in the poll results.

So pundits like Silver are worrying that pollsters are using the wrong definition of “likely voter” this time. In fact, that’s what Trump is counting on. His campaign is betting on people who have not voted recently—especially white working-class men alienated by the whole system, who wouldn’t vote for Obama because he is black, but wouldn’t vote for Romney because of his corporate-CEO status. They may get themselves to their polling place this year, for the first time in a long time, to cast a vote for Trump.

You’d be forgiven for thinking that this election has seen voter “intensity” reach new heights. However, a July poll found the level of “strong” support was about equal for both Clinton and Trump—and strikingly low: Pew found in that poll that “fewer than half of both candidates’ supporters said they backed their candidate strongly,” with 45 percent each. The equal proportions suggest intensity is not going to skew the poll results this year.

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

The final problem is one everyone knows: the uniqueness of Trump himself. All of political science is based on history, on the idea that patterns in the past will continue in the future. It makes sense: People who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 are unlikely to vote for Trump this year. But Trump is so different from every other candidate in the recent past that pundits fear he could break out of the historic patterns of voting.

That’s pretty much what happened in the primaries, when so many experts said with great conviction that Trump couldn’t win. Their reasoning was strong: He had no ground game, no field operation working to get his supporters to the polls on election day; he had no TV ads, which candidates all consider essential; he wasn’t raising money, or spending it. He had no real campaign organization and no experience in politics. In the past, candidates like that never won. But, of course, the Republican primaries were different this time.

But here’s the thing: The problem with the predictions about the Republican primaries wasn’t actually the polls. The polls’ predictions were largely borne out by the results. In fact, the problem was that the pundits were ignoring the polls. “Trump led in the vast majority of polls,” Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight wrote at the end of the primaries. FiveThirtyEight had 549 polls in their national primary polling database during the primaries; Trump led in 500—in 91 percent. Most if not all of those polls used conventional definitions of “likely voters,” and any “social desirability bias” didn’t end up making the pollsters wrong about the extent of Trump’s support.

So for all the hand-wringing over the polls, maybe the best way to predict the results in November is not to discount the polls. Instead, maybe we should rely less on the pundits who say the polls could be wrong, and more on the polls themselves, which have been pretty accurate about Trump’s support so far this election season. Of course things could change in the next 90 days, but the polls right now are clear: Our next president is Hillary Clinton.

This is a crazy time in politics. Two of the most disliked candidates in U.S. history opposing each other. Usually, it's a case of which candidate most excites their base, but this is a situation in which the winner will probably be the one who scares the bejeezus out of the electorate the least. Anything can happen in this election, including an upset win by a third-party candidate. For progressives, the nightmares would include Donald Trump or Gary Johnson.

(4)(3)

David Quigleysays:

August 13, 2016 at 7:05 am

This article is useless drivel. Until the Nation admits that Hillary Clinton rigged the primary to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders through massive purges, voting machine manipulation and censoring exit polls the issue of who will win in November is moot. Why won't Americas bell weather of truth admit to this well documented and ongoing fraud that has been witnessed by thousands of voters and voting booth monitors in 12 states including California. Please unsubscribe me to your e magazine. Until you are willing to tell the truth!!!!

(34)(14)

Roger Hoffmannsays:

August 12, 2016 at 1:12 pm

Here's another possible problem with the polls: who are they getting to respond? I wonder, as I refuse to answer the phone for any potential pollster. I won't be voting for either Trump or Hillary. I wonder how many similarly predisposed folk are like me?

(15)(2)

Phil Johnsonsays:

August 12, 2016 at 2:01 pm

How many, indeed?
Possible more informative questions (Larry King's "Question more!" comes to mind. They might include "Did you respond to earlier polls? what was the Q? how did you answer?" Surface, one-Q polling just isn't going to cut it.
Of course, the pollsters should also include "RTA" data in more detail: how many people DID refuse to answer -- and why?

(7)(1)

Thomas Fitchsays:

August 10, 2016 at 11:25 am

Voter "intensity" should include data on "negative intensity"--fear of the person I don't support. For example, my support for Hillary Clinton's politics is lukewarm; I voted for Bernie. But my lack of "strong" support for Hillary does not mean I won't vote for her--in fact, my deep fear of a Trump presidency would get me to the polls to vote for her, regardless of my ambivalence about Hillary's politics.

(18)(27)

Gary Kendallsays:

August 9, 2016 at 9:31 pm

Any rational assessment of our current political situation yields this result: If the race were between Trump & Sanders, Trump wins. The republicans would have easily painted him as a socialist (which he is). To imagine that a majority of the electorate would vote for a socialist in the general election is magical thinking. Those of you who attended Bernie rallies need to get out more and meet more of your countrymen. You'll discover you're in the minority.

P.S. To ease my conscience, I voted for Bernie in my state's primary.

(18)(40)

Roger Hoffmannsays:

August 12, 2016 at 1:24 pm

I strongly disagree. It's moot now, but I know plenty of folk of all ages and stripes who enthusiastically would have voted for a guy of Sanders' character. The high dislike of both Trump and Clinton being a driver for some, like the ex-law enforcement Republican guy & his wife, who said they can't vote for either of the vote runners but despite some philosophical differences with him, were planning on voting for Sanders. That "socialist" bogeyman wasn't working before and wouldn't have during the general. That's exactly WHY every poll confirmed the above.

(14)(1)

Stephen Moransays:

August 9, 2016 at 2:55 pm

Yes they are misleading because she is going to lose. Most people hate both self-styled representatives of their parties, but how many people can be bothered to get off the couch to vote for 8 more years of Clintonism, especially as she has shown herself to be even more opportunistic, hypocritical and lying that here disbarred rapist husband. Trump is a dangerous buffoon. HRC is a dangerous technocrat, and I think at the end of the day the buffoonery will win, unless the public comes to its senses for a second and votes for the best Democratic candidate in the race (Senator Sanders), who I, and all actual Democrats I know, will be voting in. If the Ds implode in this election, it is their own doing for running a racist, anti-left slur campaign (when there wasn't complete silence) against the one decent politician in the race. Shame on the Nation for encouraging anyone to vote for a controlled sociopath rather than the buffoon in the race. You know there was a real choice to be made in this election, but you betrayed your readership.

(79)(62)

Phil Johnsonsays:

August 12, 2016 at 2:05 pm

"﻿ to vote for 8 more years of Clintonism..."
Unh-unh. EW in 2020. You heard it here first.

(10)(1)

Nannette Crocesays:

August 9, 2016 at 3:34 pm

I was an avid Bernie supporter, but all this hyperbole is giving me headache. Please guys, give it a rest already. Last I looked, Bernie wasn't in the race anymore, and he'd be the first to tell you. Unless you think he has some "secret plan" like the one he supposedly had to turn the convention.

(54)(27)

Donna Davissays:

August 9, 2016 at 11:46 am

How will the polling data be skewed by the new voting restrictions that are in place and the gerrymandering that exists? How can you accommodate that in any predictions? I would truly appreciate some commentary that includes those subjects. Any ideas?

(10)(16)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

August 9, 2016 at 1:03 pm

Gerrymandering can ONLY effect Congressional races and candidates for local offices because they happen WITHIN the gerrymandered districts.

Presidential and Senatorial elections are based on the entire State, so gerrymandering districts has no effect.

(44)(1)

Richard Strawsays:

August 9, 2016 at 9:42 am

The only time I was polled it was skewed by not listing Stein in my choices-when I pointed this out I was hung up on.
The reality for me is I will not support a corporate war monger of the first order, and poor judgment to boot, who actively recruits other neocons to her campaign, who was the architect of our massive transfer of weapons, to the tinder box of the middle east, in history(a good portion to those perennial welfare queens-Egypt and Israel), who saber rattles about Russia while supporting the new nuclear modernization(putting small-low yield-tactical war heads on cruise missiles and drone bombs) of one Trillion dollars(how many kids could get a good education with that?), and will continue our giving the military and their suppliers(campaign contributers and cabinet members) half of every tax dollar collected(and a major cause of the deficit) to support a system that will never be able to bomb their way free of terrorists(short of using those nukes they want to make).
I suspect(hope) that when people realize what they have nominated(in both parties) they will look and see that only one party now represents the alternative to our current military policy(and other pressing issues as well). The ones that push a policy that throws away our money and youth in the vain hope that doing more of the same will work "this time" does not deserve our vote.
I will release my fear and vote for Jill Stein.

(74)(70)

Robert Andrewssays:

August 9, 2016 at 7:39 am

Pollsters need to ask just two questions upfront to get the best sample possible for where we are at with the election. Any additional information needs to be past these first two questions.

1. Do you intend to vote? Yes, No, (perhaps Maybe)
2. Who would you vote for, Trump, Clinton, Johnson, or Stein? Rotation of the names need to be done.

(48)(3)

Robert Andrewssays:

August 9, 2016 at 7:43 am

I would also add "Don't know who I would vote for" at the end of the names.

(22)(0)

Clyde Grubbssays:

August 9, 2016 at 7:05 am

Unlikely voters are new voters, young, gifted and Latinx. The studies shows that most of Trumps primary voters were the usual suspects, older, whiter and angry.

(20)(53)

John Rileysays:

August 8, 2016 at 11:57 pm

1. the polls may be a little wrong, but this one isn't close. 2. the 'social desirability bias' probably only has force within the demographic Trump already dominates - white men. 3. could just as easily imagine a reverse bias among conservative women, who claim Trump, vote Clinton. It will be interesting, after the fact though, to see assessments of the extent of the bias, given Trump's unconventionality.

(31)(7)

Jonathan Katzsays:

August 8, 2016 at 9:20 pm

To the Nation,
When are you going to reflect some of your readers and recognize that there is a Green Party candidate that should be heard? The views of Jill Stein and the Green party represent real progressive ideas.
You wouldn't know they existed and had their convention this past weekend based on what articles you are showing. Is the Nation a magazine that represents the Democratic Party or is a voice for progressive ideas? I am waiting to see what you do.

(68)(47)

Karin Eckvallsays:

August 8, 2016 at 6:17 pm

At his speech today, Trump did a pretty good job of calmly ignoring hecklers, while portraying himself as the agent of change and Hillary the bought and paid for agent of the status quo. Whether the polls are accurate today or not, if he manages to maintain a fairly "normal demeanor" from now on...? (Maybe she should start refuting his argument by releasing her Wall St. speech transcripts.)

(87)(41)

Ben Kasparsays:

August 10, 2016 at 11:43 am

Let me just say that, with regard to "normal demeanor", the trend is not your friend (reference: pretty much everything--the whole thing, start to finish).

Ms. or Mr. Thumbs Down: Which part of my post do you disagree with? Or maybe all of it?

(14)(30)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

August 9, 2016 at 1:08 pm

Don't take those "downers" seriously. It is strictly an emotional response to the clarity of your comment.

(16)(12)

Victor Sciamarellisays:

August 9, 2016 at 7:06 am

Ms. Eckvall, with all due respect, I think we should think less of Clinton’s Wall Street (WS) transcripts and put more focus on the WS money.
It is unlikely Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs wants to be seen handing over a suitcase full of money to Clinton. Instead, it’s better that bribery has the appearance of legitimacy.
She gives a few speeches for which Goldman pays $200k-plus per speech and millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Although I’m curious about the speeches, I think they were likely trivial rather than revealing. The important thing is she took large sums of money, and in return WS expects she will serve their interests.

(64)(14)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

August 9, 2016 at 1:19 pm

Victor is undoubtably incorrect. HRC doesn't care that we know about the money, as much as she is terrified that the transcripts will ever be made public.

98% of Democrat candidates will happily take large sums of money from anyone; it is routine. However, within HRC's speeches there are likely a dozen "Romney-like references" which highlight her unwavering support for plutocratic goals, and her distain for blue collar concerns. Otherwise, she would have made them available by now.

We know she took their money, we don't know how far she prostituted herself to "earn" it.

(51)(15)

Roger Hoffmannsays:

August 12, 2016 at 1:18 pm

The "prostitution" (I prefer to more delicately call it quid pro quo) won't really re-start until she's in the White House.

(2)(1)

Charlotte E Edwardssays:

August 8, 2016 at 5:50 pm

I have no way of knowing if I'm on somebody's polling list because I don't respond to 'unavailable' calls. Just who are they polling?